He did raid his IRA for the $7k down payment. Someone upthread thought he didn't, so I wanted to clarify.

Ah, damn. That is idiotic. At 0.9% interest I would try to put as little money down as possible, especially if the down payment had to come from retirement accounts. I hope it was at least from a Roth IRA so there aren't penalties?

There's an early withdraw penalty, even for Roth IRAs, if you pull it out before the age of 55 and don't replace it within a certain period of time. Ask me how I know.

I thought the penalty was for withdrawing more than the contributions (investment earnings). Wouldn't penalties interfere with a Roth conversion ladder? I would like to ask how you know. Can you point me to the relevant irs.gov page(s)?

He did raid his IRA for the $7k down payment. Someone upthread thought he didn't, so I wanted to clarify.

Ah, damn. That is idiotic. At 0.9% interest I would try to put as little money down as possible, especially if the down payment had to come from retirement accounts. I hope it was at least from a Roth IRA so there aren't penalties?

There's an early withdraw penalty, even for Roth IRAs, if you pull it out before the age of 55 and don't replace it within a certain period of time. Ask me how I know.

I thought the penalty was for withdrawing more than the contributions (investment earnings). Wouldn't penalties interfere with a Roth conversion ladder? I would like to ask how you know. Can you point me to the relevant irs.gov page(s)?

I withdrew $10k from my Roth IRA for a down payment on my house under a "first time home buyer" incentive in the tax code that allows up to $10,000 to be withdrawn without penalty as long as it is used toward your first property purchase. Apparently I did my paperwork wrong because I got bitch-slapped with a 10% early withdraw penalty when I filed my taxes that year. All $10,000 came from a sum that was transferred over from a 401k from a previous employer. I paid the taxes on it when I transferred it, then got hit with the early withdraw penalty, then SOMEHOW got hit with ANOTHER early withdraw penalty for my 401k, even though I followed the instructions from the IRS to a T. Consulted a tax professional, they told me it would end up being more expensive to fight it than to just pay the bullshit $1800 in back taxes that I suddenly owed.#TaxationIsTHEFT

He did raid his IRA for the $7k down payment. Someone upthread thought he didn't, so I wanted to clarify.

Ah, damn. That is idiotic. At 0.9% interest I would try to put as little money down as possible, especially if the down payment had to come from retirement accounts. I hope it was at least from a Roth IRA so there aren't penalties?

There's an early withdraw penalty, even for Roth IRAs, if you pull it out before the age of 55 and don't replace it within a certain period of time. Ask me how I know.

I thought the penalty was for withdrawing more than the contributions (investment earnings). Wouldn't penalties interfere with a Roth conversion ladder? I would like to ask how you know. Can you point me to the relevant irs.gov page(s)?

This is the source I used. I called the IRS and asked if there were any special forms. They said no and instructed me to indicate when I filed my taxes that I used the withdraw for a first time home purchase. I did so. I was penalized. It's horse shit.

He did raid his IRA for the $7k down payment. Someone upthread thought he didn't, so I wanted to clarify.

Ah, damn. That is idiotic. At 0.9% interest I would try to put as little money down as possible, especially if the down payment had to come from retirement accounts. I hope it was at least from a Roth IRA so there aren't penalties?

There's an early withdraw penalty, even for Roth IRAs, if you pull it out before the age of 55 and don't replace it within a certain period of time. Ask me how I know.

I thought the penalty was for withdrawing more than the contributions (investment earnings). Wouldn't penalties interfere with a Roth conversion ladder? I would like to ask how you know. Can you point me to the relevant irs.gov page(s)?

Looks to me like return of regular contributions is not taxed, emphasis mine:

Quote

Are Distributions Taxable?You do not include in your gross income qualified distributions or distributions that are a return of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s).

Quote

Unless one of the exceptions listed later applies, you must pay the additional tax on the portion of the distribution attributable to the part of the conversion or rollover contribution that you had to include in income because of the conversion or rollover.

He did raid his IRA for the $7k down payment. Someone upthread thought he didn't, so I wanted to clarify.

Ah, damn. That is idiotic. At 0.9% interest I would try to put as little money down as possible, especially if the down payment had to come from retirement accounts. I hope it was at least from a Roth IRA so there aren't penalties?

There's an early withdraw penalty, even for Roth IRAs, if you pull it out before the age of 55 and don't replace it within a certain period of time. Ask me how I know.

I thought the penalty was for withdrawing more than the contributions (investment earnings). Wouldn't penalties interfere with a Roth conversion ladder? I would like to ask how you know. Can you point me to the relevant irs.gov page(s)?

Looks to me like return of regular contributions is not taxed, emphasis mine:

Quote

Are Distributions Taxable?You do not include in your gross income qualified distributions or distributions that are a return of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s).

Quote

Unless one of the exceptions listed later applies, you must pay the additional tax on the portion of the distribution attributable to the part of the conversion or rollover contribution that you had to include in income because of the conversion or rollover.

I paid the appropriate taxes when I converted from a 401k to a Roth IRA. Is that not what that means? Because I still got charged those taxes again plus a 10% early withdraw penalty.

Looks to me like return of regular contributions is not taxed, emphasis mine:

Quote

Are Distributions Taxable?You do not include in your gross income qualified distributions or distributions that are a return of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s).

Quote

Unless one of the exceptions listed later applies, you must pay the additional tax on the portion of the distribution attributable to the part of the conversion or rollover contribution that you had to include in income because of the conversion or rollover.

I paid the appropriate taxes when I converted from a 401k to a Roth IRA. Is that not what that means? Because I still got charged those taxes again plus a 10% early withdraw penalty.

We are talking about two [slightly] different things here. I'm referring to regular direct contributions to a Roth IRA and then distributions that do not exceed the contribution amounts. Your case was a conversion to Roth IRA and subsequent distribution for first time home buying.

First home. Even if you are under age 59½, you do not have to pay the 10% additional tax on up to $10,000 of distributions you receive to buy, build, or rebuild a first home. To qualify for treatment as a first-time homebuyer distribution, the distribution must meet all the following requirements.

It must be used to pay qualified acquisition costs (defined next) before the close of the 120th day after the day you received it.

It must be used to pay qualified acquisition costs for the main home of a first-time homebuyer (defined below) who is any of the following.

Yourself.

Your spouse.

Your or your spouse's child.

Your or your spouse's grandchild.

Your or your spouse's parent or other ancestor.

When added to all your prior qualified first-time homebuyer distributions, if any, total qualifying distributions cannot be more than $10,000.

Though it sounds like something still went wrong elsewhere because you should have only been charged taxes once (because Roth is post-tax).

Looks to me like return of regular contributions is not taxed, emphasis mine:

Quote

Are Distributions Taxable?You do not include in your gross income qualified distributions or distributions that are a return of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s).

Quote

Unless one of the exceptions listed later applies, you must pay the additional tax on the portion of the distribution attributable to the part of the conversion or rollover contribution that you had to include in income because of the conversion or rollover.

I paid the appropriate taxes when I converted from a 401k to a Roth IRA. Is that not what that means? Because I still got charged those taxes again plus a 10% early withdraw penalty.

We are talking about two [slightly] different things here. I'm referring to regular direct contributions to a Roth IRA and then distributions that do not exceed the contribution amounts. Your case was a conversion to Roth IRA and subsequent distribution for first time home buying.

First home. Even if you are under age 59½, you do not have to pay the 10% additional tax on up to $10,000 of distributions you receive to buy, build, or rebuild a first home. To qualify for treatment as a first-time homebuyer distribution, the distribution must meet all the following requirements.

It must be used to pay qualified acquisition costs (defined next) before the close of the 120th day after the day you received it.

It must be used to pay qualified acquisition costs for the main home of a first-time homebuyer (defined below) who is any of the following.

Yourself.

Your spouse.

Your or your spouse's child.

Your or your spouse's grandchild.

Your or your spouse's parent or other ancestor.

When added to all your prior qualified first-time homebuyer distributions, if any, total qualifying distributions cannot be more than $10,000.

Though it sounds like something still went wrong elsewhere because you should have only been charged taxes once (because Roth is post-tax).

Like I said, I probably overlooked something and got trapped in a loophole. The tax man still bent me over by double-charging me though.

I don't think a conversion is the same thing as a contribution when it comes to withdrawals, but I'm not a tax guy so take that with a very large grain of salt.

A contribution to a Roth IRA can be taken out at any time without paying any penalties or taxes, but not the interest on the contribution. A conversion has to go through the 5 year waiting period, then the conversion can be taken out without paying any penalties or taxes, but not the interest on the conversion. All interest has to either wait until the year you turn 59.5 or you pay a penalty.

Sadly I have to nominate my FIL as someone who "doesn't get it" as well.

3 months ago he financed a new Seat Alhambra with all the nick nacks you could think of. My SIL and GF already moved out, so this is a 7-seater for only my FIL and MIL (who has her own car). He says he needs the space for their two yearly ski trips. As he also uses it for his business and can write it off as a business expense and save some taxes I was kind of whatever, he could've done worse.

Turns out that he didn't really pay attention at the dealership and the salesman included a credit insurance policy in the financing deal bc my FIL has poor credit (go figure). After 3 months he noticed that the monthly amounts deducted from his bank account were significantly larger than expected, found the insurance policy in his papers and calculated that in total it will cost him an additional 10k  over the life of the loan. He got very pissed, tried getting a lawyer involved, went to the dealership to complain, but in the end he signed the papers and didn't pay attention so it is his fault.

Now to the interesting part. After all this his solution to the problem was to trade in the car, buy out the insurance policy and finance a used Mercedes C-Class, which is even bigger, without a credit insurance policy instead. The Mercedes dealership will take his Seat for 5k  less than he paid for it three months ago, he will have to pay 2k  to close the credit insurance and the monthly payment on the Mercedes is on par with the Seat payment WITH the insurance policy. He is now out 7k  for three months of driving and still has a monthly payment that is higher than he originally wanted but still very happy with all of this bc he finally got the car he really wanted.

His conclusion: you shouldn't get cars that are compromises but go for what you really want instead, bc in the end they cost the same anyway (?!?!).

I really like him. He's honest, hard working and overall just a really good guy. But man he has no clue about finances.

I don't think a conversion is the same thing as a contribution when it comes to withdrawals, but I'm not a tax guy so take that with a very large grain of salt.

A contribution to a Roth IRA can be taken out at any time without paying any penalties or taxes, but not the interest on the contribution. A conversion has to go through the 5 year waiting period, then the conversion can be taken out without paying any penalties or taxes, but not the interest on the conversion. All interest has to either wait until the year you turn 59.5 or you pay a penalty.

Did a running event/camping trip with friends of friends in northern michigan. A woman "in charge" collected money from everyone and i instantly paid in cash. (It was $150 but basically twice what i expected.) After doing the calculations in my head on the way back, the math was off. I facebooked message afterwards that something seems off but let me know if I missed any expenses since Xx10 people should way more than cover expenses A-D. She apologized and said she thinks she screwed up the calculations and would venmo us back. After a month I didn't hear anything and asked for an update. She said she would send it when she got paid on the 8th (today), turns out she didn't have enough money and said she would pay the other half the 22nd because "Utah payroll is bizarre".

I don't think she is screwing us over based on her personality and past stories, but it just shocks me someone can be so screwed up with finances that they can't afford to reimburse people. This isn't a bill for something she just got, it was money accidentally given to her and she has such cash flow probelms it disappeared in the interim. At this point she owes only like $20 each to 5 people. I don't really care but some people are getting super pissed and these friends are closer to her than me. I just responded with a "Sounds great. Thanks and keep me posted" cause she has a lot more problems than my $20.

I don't think a conversion is the same thing as a contribution when it comes to withdrawals, but I'm not a tax guy so take that with a very large grain of salt.

A contribution to a Roth IRA can be taken out at any time without paying any penalties or taxes, but not the interest on the contribution. A conversion has to go through the 5 year waiting period, then the conversion can be taken out without paying any penalties or taxes, but not the interest on the conversion. All interest has to either wait until the year you turn 59.5 or you pay a penalty.

That would be the thing I overlooked.It would also be exactly where the IRS fucked me when I asked "and I can take this out right away after the transfer goes through with no penalty, right?" and they said "yes."

That would be the thing I overlooked.It would also be exactly where the IRS fucked me when I asked "and I can take this out right away after the transfer goes through with no penalty, right?" and they said "yes."

Oh well, live and learn.

We have a lawyer friend who does estate and estate tax law. If she is facing a questionable section of IRS rules she will call them directly, with the same question, up to three times. She documents everything about the conversations, including who she spoke to. She hopes for agreement by at least two of the three advisors. This gives her the ability to deal with an audit with, " I spoke to your people on x and x, and was given the following guidance, which I complied with. Now you are saying that TWO of your experts are wrong?".

That would be the thing I overlooked.It would also be exactly where the IRS fucked me when I asked "and I can take this out right away after the transfer goes through with no penalty, right?" and they said "yes."

Oh well, live and learn.

We have a lawyer friend who does estate and estate tax law. If she is facing a questionable section of IRS rules she will call them directly, with the same question, up to three times. She documents everything about the conversations, including who she spoke to. She hopes for agreement by at least two of the three advisors. This gives her the ability to deal with an audit with, " I spoke to your people on x and x, and was given the following guidance, which I complied with. Now you are saying that TWO of your experts are wrong?".

Sadly I have to nominate my FIL as someone who "doesn't get it" as well.

3 months ago he financed a new Seat Alhambra with all the nick nacks you could think of. My SIL and GF already moved out, so this is a 7-seater for only my FIL and MIL (who has her own car). He says he needs the space for their two yearly ski trips. As he also uses it for his business and can write it off as a business expense and save some taxes I was kind of whatever, he could've done worse.

Turns out that he didn't really pay attention at the dealership and the salesman included a credit insurance policy in the financing deal bc my FIL has poor credit (go figure). After 3 months he noticed that the monthly amounts deducted from his bank account were significantly larger than expected, found the insurance policy in his papers and calculated that in total it will cost him an additional 10k  over the life of the loan. He got very pissed, tried getting a lawyer involved, went to the dealership to complain, but in the end he signed the papers and didn't pay attention so it is his fault.

Now to the interesting part. After all this his solution to the problem was to trade in the car, buy out the insurance policy and finance a used Mercedes C-Class, which is even bigger, without a credit insurance policy instead. The Mercedes dealership will take his Seat for 5k  less than he paid for it three months ago, he will have to pay 2k  to close the credit insurance and the monthly payment on the Mercedes is on par with the Seat payment WITH the insurance policy. He is now out 7k  for three months of driving and still has a monthly payment that is higher than he originally wanted but still very happy with all of this bc he finally got the car he really wanted.

His conclusion: you shouldn't get cars that are compromises but go for what you really want instead, bc in the end they cost the same anyway (?!?!).

I really like him. He's honest, hard working and overall just a really good guy. But man he has no clue about finances.

Oh dear. All this financing and tax reductions are things you really have to understand well before you make a deal. Car dealers just want to make a deal and they will always make transactions sound attractive to you. Next time, tell you FIL that you or your OH can join him buying a car to help him get the whole financial picture.

I have a bachelor party that is 5.5 hours away next month. There are four of us from the same city and I offered to drive. One guy says SW has a great deal! $135! Well its also $177 coming back. So it would be $315 a person (or $1250 a carload) to fly to the city that would take 3 hours to get to when you include parking at the airport, checking in, baggage claim, and then 25 min downtown from the airport in either an uber or rental. It did not make sense to me at all.

My problem with all this is that Im taking it a bit too personally...I'm looking at my 1998 Camry sitting in the garage and thinking Ill never have as nice a car as DS does now.

Solution: Save your money and plan on buying it from him with cash at fair (depreciated) market value when he tires of it. This will give you something to look forward to. I'm assuming you would be able to pay cash for it now, but it will be more fun if you start a new-to-you car fund and watch it grow.

I have a bachelor party that is 5.5 hours away next month. There are four of us from the same city and I offered to drive. One guy says SW has a great deal! $135! Well its also $177 coming back. So it would be $315 a person (or $1250 a carload) to fly to the city that would take 3 hours to get to when you include parking at the airport, checking in, baggage claim, and then 25 min downtown from the airport in either an uber or rental. It did not make sense to me at all.

Probably cheaper to drive even if they don't pitch in for gas or anything.

Would someone like this (or anyone, really) keep a car for 20 years? Think of where electric cars and automation will be in 20 years. It'll be all too easy to say, "But all the gas and time savings! Why should I keep this outdated gas guzzler?"

It's hard to say for sure but I could see this happening. Maybe he'll keep it at least 10 years though, that's not unreasonable for a brand new car even if you drive a lot of miles. But maybe he'll keep it even less since he's going to grad school and might be making bank in a few years? Hedonic threadmill and all...

Ohhh, that is a good point--I was about to say of course people keep their cars for 20 years, even non-mustachian people, but electric and self driving cars will likely throw a wrench in that for a few years.

Yes, those are two trends each with the possibility of causing major disruption in the automotive industry and market. Probably within 5 years.

Think about how Uber, etc have disrupted taxis.

Autonomous capabilities have the potential to cut costs 75% by eliminating the driver.

EVs have the potential to cut TCO by 50% once you include the lower maintenance, much lower fuel cost and expected longer power train lifespan (not today, it's still early. But in 5 years under current trends)

Both of these effects are complementary, so you could see on-demand transportation costs go down a LOT.

I have a bachelor party that is 5.5 hours away next month. There are four of us from the same city and I offered to drive. One guy says SW has a great deal! $135! Well its also $177 coming back. So it would be $315 a person (or $1250 a carload) to fly to the city that would take 3 hours to get to when you include parking at the airport, checking in, baggage claim, and then 25 min downtown from the airport in either an uber or rental. It did not make sense to me at all.

Probably cheaper to drive even if they don't pitch in for gas or anything.

I have a bachelor party that is 5.5 hours away next month. There are four of us from the same city and I offered to drive. One guy says SW has a great deal! $135! Well its also $177 coming back. So it would be $315 a person (or $1250 a carload) to fly to the city that would take 3 hours to get to when you include parking at the airport, checking in, baggage claim, and then 25 min downtown from the airport in either an uber or rental. It did not make sense to me at all.

Probably cheaper to drive even if they don't pitch in for gas or anything.

Plus then you will have a car at your destination.

And you can listen to a decent audiobook during the 11 hours of the drive.

First, they primarily chose the city they want to move to based on where they think there is the most growth for their Primerica business.

Then I asked, "So are you going to be downsizing?" MIL says "I'd like to get something bigger, you know how cold the winters get in Minnesota, and I just feel like it's much more warming to have a lot of space. It's nice to be able to move to a different room sometimes." I don't even know what on earth that means. They currently have a 1500ish sq. ft. home for 2 people, which was enough when they had four kids, but apparently it's too... ?? something ?? I really don't understand.

Also another reason for moving given was "You know how old homes get, ours is getting to 25 years and things are just starting to fall apart and it's just not worth it." Cocked my head at this one... They know our house was built in 1915. Their house is falling apart because they can't generally afford to do real maintenance on it, not because it's 'old'.

I think this move probably won't happen, seems like they are blowing money like crazy right now based on the assumption that they are going to make it big with Primerica, and that house plans are also based on the same assumptions.

Another really minor thing was that FIL brought up some things about how we should really let him/Primerica take care of our 401ks. I shut him down pretty quickly but I was really thrown off when he asked if I was getting a "good interest rate on my 401k." Okay, contextually I know what he means, but I don't know anybody with good knowledge of finances that would call what you get from a 401k a "interest rate," unless you were talking in the context of exclusively buying bonds or something, most would call that average RoI or RoR or something. Again, really minor in any other context, but it really made me even more certain that he is completely unqualified to handle anybodies money.

Then I asked, "So are you going to be downsizing?" MIL says "I'd like to get something bigger, you know how cold the winters get in Minnesota, and I just feel like it's much more warming to have a lot of space. It's nice to be able to move to a different room sometimes." I don't even know what on earth that means. They currently have a 1500ish sq. ft. home for 2 people, which was enough when they had four kids, but apparently it's too... ?? something ?? I really don't understand.

Maybe they plan to heat all the rooms to different temperatures? So when you come in from the cold, you can go to the coolish 18°-room (which will feel warm to you since the outside was much colder). Once you get used to that, you move the next-warmer room, at 20°, and so on. The more rooms you have, the longer you can keep this up. It's foolproof!

Then I asked, "So are you going to be downsizing?" MIL says "I'd like to get something bigger, you know how cold the winters get in Minnesota, and I just feel like it's much more warming to have a lot of space. It's nice to be able to move to a different room sometimes." I don't even know what on earth that means. They currently have a 1500ish sq. ft. home for 2 people, which was enough when they had four kids, but apparently it's too... ?? something ?? I really don't understand.

Interesting theory and so wrong. But on the other hand... I live in a big house and I do not heat the rooms that I don't daily use. I keep the doors to those rooms closed. So these rooms are pretty cold in the winter, although not as cold as outside. That will probably work as an insulating buffer. It will be warmer for the warm room to lay beside the half-cold room, then against the outside. On the other hand, the outside wall is well insulated, while the walls inside the house are not.

But my conclusion after living in a big house for many years, is to move smaller.

I have 98% visibility into my parent's finances (checking, credit cards, etc). Don't see the mortgage. Anyway, I set everything up into a seperate Quicken file on my computer so I can keep track of things. Dad isn't really trustworthy anymore and is easily taken by scammers. Mom is clueless and thinks she can't figure it out so doesn't even try.

So I downloaded transactions into Quicken yesterday and spent a bunch of time unduplicating it (I have no idea why it does that). Then start looking over stuff. As usual, spend way too much on groceries, then spend more on eating out. As usual, too much on Comcast. As usual, spending a crap ton of money on cigarettes.

Then I look at the credit cards. What, why is that card at $1k? I just worked with them to transfer the $13k balance to a promo 0% interest rate a few months ago, it should be in the drawer, not being used, at $0. Um, nope.

Ugh. My parents are hopeless. I love them dearly, but when SHTF (and it will, dad's got dementia and he's getting worse), they will be declaring bankruptcy, moving near me, and going cash only. Because clearly they can't manage credit.

First, they primarily chose the city they want to move to based on where they think there is the most growth for their Primerica business.

...

I think this move probably won't happen, seems like they are blowing money like crazy right now based on the assumption that they are going to make it big with Primerica, and that house plans are also based on the same assumptions.

Those are a couple terrifying statements right there!

A few years ago before my MMM days I sat through a Primerica session just to get the free financial analysis done (thought it may be useful, hint... it wasn't) and the sales tactics that were used were in my mind borderline unethical.

Statements like "you don't pay us anything for this service!" - technically true for up front costs but after Primerica signs you up for a mutual funds with 3% MER's they are getting paid from that.

First, they primarily chose the city they want to move to based on where they think there is the most growth for their Primerica business.

...

I think this move probably won't happen, seems like they are blowing money like crazy right now based on the assumption that they are going to make it big with Primerica, and that house plans are also based on the same assumptions.

Those are a couple terrifying statements right there!

A few years ago before my MMM days I sat through a Primerica session just to get the free financial analysis done (thought it may be useful, hint... it wasn't) and the sales tactics that were used were in my mind borderline unethical.

Statements like "you don't pay us anything for this service!" - technically true for up front costs but after Primerica signs you up for a mutual funds with 3% MER's they are getting paid from that.

Yeah, I looked up the basics on them for ammo if I have to talk to FIL about it any more. 4-6% on the front, up to 7% on the back if you sell within 7 years, and higher than 1% management fees. But apparently he's getting a "good interest rate" so it must be worth it!

First, they primarily chose the city they want to move to based on where they think there is the most growth for their Primerica business.

...

I think this move probably won't happen, seems like they are blowing money like crazy right now based on the assumption that they are going to make it big with Primerica, and that house plans are also based on the same assumptions.

Those are a couple terrifying statements right there!

A few years ago before my MMM days I sat through a Primerica session just to get the free financial analysis done (thought it may be useful, hint... it wasn't) and the sales tactics that were used were in my mind borderline unethical.

Statements like "you don't pay us anything for this service!" - technically true for up front costs but after Primerica signs you up for a mutual funds with 3% MER's they are getting paid from that.

Yeah, I looked up the basics on them for ammo if I have to talk to FIL about it any more. 4-6% on the front, up to 7% on the back if you sell within 7 years, and higher than 1% management fees. But apparently he's getting a "good interest rate" so it must be worth it!

I'm pretty sure my parents got suckered into this a few years ago :( Luckily they got a "free consultation" with a friend of a friend who was starting up with Edward Jones, and he immediately told them "Guys, you're paying like 5 or 6% in fees, that's ridiculous.". I mean, I'd totally be willing to try to manage their retirement myself, but I appreciate that they found someone else who, although semi-reasonably expensive, seems to be very straightforward about everything he's doing.

Because "Edward Jones" and their "Making Sense of Investing" on a sunflower yellow background gives a sense of reassurance to the wanna-stay-ignorant.

Or people could read the Bogleheads wiki on lazy portfolios, and ignore Fast Eddie who's constantly jonesing for your wallet.

My biggest beef with western countries is you almost always have the government to bail you out. If you didn't have that safety factor, you'd be saving and investing more, into equities, real estate, business, etc. Just my opinion, don't ask me to cite scholarly proof.

Because "Edward Jones" and their "Making Sense of Investing" on a sunflower yellow background gives a sense of reassurance to the wanna-stay-ignorant.

Or people could read the Bogleheads wiki on lazy portfolios, and ignore Fast Eddie who's constantly jonesing for your wallet.

My biggest beef with western countries is you almost always have the government to bail you out. If you didn't have that safety factor, you'd be saving and investing more, into equities, real estate, business, etc. Just my opinion, don't ask me to cite scholarly proof.

My mom is definitely the head-in-the-sand sort with investing. My dad does ok, but I think he just wants to believe advisers have his best interests at heart. They'll be fine, though - they've got Tricare insurance for life, they own their house, they go camping in-state for vacations, they JUST upgraded to smartphones last year, and they're perfectly happy with what they have. With my dad's army retirement and SS, I'm pretty sure they're still socking money away, even though my mom makes very little money teaching computer skills at an elementary school.

I really, really should have offered to help manage their stuff once I found out about the Primerica fiasco, but they're gun-shy about self-management after making bad decisions in 2000 and selling at the bottom of the market :( We were talking about it, and Mom said "oh, I know we made a mistake not selling earlier. If we'd done that it would have been fine." I'm just over here like "Well, or you could have not sold AT ALL, and you'd have like a billion dollars right now."

My biggest beef with western countries is you almost always have the government to bail you out. If you didn't have that safety factor, you'd be saving and investing more, into equities, real estate, business, etc. Just my opinion, don't ask me to cite scholarly proof.

I absolutely agree. I mean I'm not saying that it would be better overall if there weren't such safety nets, but I hate how passive it has made people. I know people that will do detailed research into their fantasy team but won't even look into index funds. That tells me that they have the ability but lack the desire. They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Yeah my favorite example of this is the myth of the "hard working homeowner". Which is just code for some two-car family in the suburbia living above their means.

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

Many of the boot-strappers I know benefited from scholarships, grants, and bursaries during their school years. They also tended to go to public universities that are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. What I don't understand is why they don't acknowledge the extent to which they benefited from the ladder they got to climb, and why they pretend that they did it all themselves.

Now I really wish I could remember it. I've scoured my recent Goodreads list and I feel like it might have been The New Jim Crow, but I 'm not sure. However, a google search did reveal other very interesting information:

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

Many of the boot-strappers I know benefited from scholarships, grants, and bursaries during their school years. They also tended to go to public universities that are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. What I don't understand is why they don't acknowledge the extent to which they benefited from the ladder they got to climb, and why they pretend that they did it all themselves.

It's called privilege. Very hard to see when you're the one benefiting. Very hard not to see when you're the one without it.

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

Many of the boot-strappers I know benefited from scholarships, grants, and bursaries during their school years. They also tended to go to public universities that are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. What I don't understand is why they don't acknowledge the extent to which they benefited from the ladder they got to climb, and why they pretend that they did it all themselves.

It goes back to judging themselves by their intentions and others by their actions.

A Planet Money or This American Life podcast on welfare interviewed a woman who received subsidised housing, food stamps, and subsidised education for her son, then had the gall to proudly tell the reporter, "But I never went on welfare."

A Planet Money or This American Life podcast on welfare interviewed a woman who received subsidised housing, food stamps, and subsidised education for her son, then had the gall to proudly tell the reporter, "But I never went on welfare."

Is it only welfare if you are getting actual cash from the government?

A Planet Money or This American Life podcast on welfare interviewed a woman who received subsidised housing, food stamps, and subsidised education for her son, then had the gall to proudly tell the reporter, "But I never went on welfare."

Is it only welfare if you are getting actual cash from the government?

It is only welfare when other people get it, especially non white people.

I have one in my family who gets food stamps and CHIP for the kids, lived a decade or so in a house owned by the parents, with sporadic rent payments, who frequently goes on rants about no one ever gave him anything, he has earned everything he has and other people need to learn yo take care of themselves.

My problem/experience with food stamps was working at a grocery and seeing tons of crap being bought. I would never buy the soda and chips myself 1. I couldn't afford it 2. It's so bad for you. I just wish government money only went to healthy foods. Too many people are malnourished in this country to be wasting money on coke and Doritos.

A Planet Money or This American Life podcast on welfare interviewed a woman who received subsidised housing, food stamps, and subsidised education for her son, then had the gall to proudly tell the reporter, "But I never went on welfare."

Is it only welfare if you are getting actual cash from the government?

For the specifics of that Planet Money episode, yes. That woman and many in her community only consider "welfare" actual cash handouts from the government. I listened to that a long time ago, and can't remember what exactly the reasoning was.

You also realize that most middle class Americans, like the reporter, have also benefited from government benefits and would never consider themselves to have been on welfare (school grants, subsidized loans, state school, etc.). That's just a helping hand to the working man as many around here (where I live) like to say.

My problem/experience with food stamps was working at a grocery and seeing tons of crap being bought. I would never buy the soda and chips myself 1. I couldn't afford it 2. It's so bad for you. I just wish government money only went to healthy foods. Too many people are malnourished in this country to be wasting money on coke and Doritos.

Eh, I personally think values-judgment with stuff like that is a waste of time and money. Besides, what's "healthy"? Is my breakfast of oatmeal, toast and coffee healthy? My mom, who is still on the 80's low-fat craze, would say yes. (Except that I had whole milk in both.) MMM, as a a low-carb believer, would say no. My grandma believed that a hot breakfast was healthier than a cold breakfast (bacon and eggs or oatmeal would be healthy, hard-boiled eggs or cold cereal are not).

I think SNAP is a much better program, overall, than WIC, for example. With WIC, you *have* to buy the exact thing you have vouchers for. Like, I saw a woman who had to go back to get a different orange juice because she had grabbed the 59oz bottle that was on sale and not the 64oz bottle that wasn't, and only the 64oz bottle qualified for the voucher. Who benefits in that situation? Not her, who had to spend all that extra time re-ringing her stuff. Not the people in line behind her. Not the store who has to deal with the vouchers and program their systems to flag 'non-compliant' purchases. Not the government, who has to reimburse the store for the more expensive but basically identical product, AND has to administer those byzantine rules.

You also realize that most middle class Americans, like the reporter, have also benefited from government benefits and would never consider themselves to have been on welfare (school grants, subsidized loans, state school, etc.). That's just a helping hand to the working man as many around here (where I live) like to say.

I don't know if I would consider those things welfare either. They ARE government benefits/handouts certainly, but I think when most people say, "on welfare," they are referring to payments made for basic needs such as food and rent, due to low income. At least that's how I've always seen it referred to around these parts.*

*I was 'on welfare' as a kid - we got weirdly shaped butter and cheese and coupons for free groceries.